Code of Practice for Research Candidature and Supervision This statement amplifies the Regulations for the degrees of MPhil and PhD (see Regulations for Higher Degrees in All Faculties), and those for MPhil and PhD in the Colleges Accredited by the University (Section XIV), by indicating the way in which they are interpreted.

  1. Introduction

    The University undertakes to make satisfactory arrangement for the admission, candidature, supervision and examination of candidates. This code of practice sets out guidelines for candidature for MPhil/PhD degrees in either the University or the Accredited Colleges. It is intended to amplify and complement the Regulations 1 and provide a framework for all supervisory relationships. It is supplemented by faculty/academic department 2 or College guidelines which are consistent with this code of practice but specify more detailed procedures operating at local level.

    The code is intended to promote good practice in research candidature and supervision and ensure a degree of comparability in the student experience. It is essential that a good working relationship is established between the supervisor and the student and that responsibilities on both sides are clearly defined and understood.

  2. The Higher Degrees of MPhil and PhD

    The MPhil and PhD are higher degrees involving a programme of research training and supervision, and leading either to the production of a thesis or, in the case of candidates in Music or in Art and Design3, the production of an original work or recital together with additional material, as specified in Regulation 22, Regulations for the Degrees of Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy above.

    The Thesis

    The thesis, or equivalent submission for Music and Art and Design (see Regulation 22 cited above), which is the outcome of the research project and the training programme, must be composed clearly and presented in the required format (see section 16 below, and Regulation 22 above). The subject should be dealt with in an orderly manner, using appropriate research methods and techniques and displaying critical discrimination in evaluating evidence.

  3. The difference between MPhil and PhD

    For the award of PhD, candidates must have demonstrated 4:

    1. the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through original research or other advanced scholarship, or of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline, and merit publication;
    2. a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or an area of professional practice;
    3. the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for the generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems; and
    4. a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academic enquiry.

    The MPhil is an award of considerable distinction in its own right, and is awarded for the successful completion of a substantial element of research or equivalent enquiry. The MPhil differs from the PhD only in terms of depth of study required and the extent of the original personal contribution to knowledge.

    More specifically, for the award of MPhil, candidates must have demonstrated:

    1. a systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study, or area of professional practice;
    2. originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline;
    3. conceptual understanding that enables the student:
      - to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline; and
      - to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses; and
    4. a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or advanced scholarship.

  4. Selection and Admission of Students

    Entry requirements
    Applicants must demonstrate that they are capable of undertaking a sustained piece of research and producing a thesis. They should normally hold a good honours degree from a recognised UK or overseas University or the CNAA, but in exceptional circumstances applicants with other qualifications and appropriate experience may be accepted. Some candidates may be required to undertake a taught masters degree first.

    English language proficiency
    Students whose first language is not English will also be required to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of English as defined by University Senate 5.

    References
    Two independent references must be received for all applicants.

    Selection Procedures
    Where possible, admissions decisions should involve the judgement of more than one member of staff with relevant expertise, and should always take into account the University's Equal Opportunities Policy.

    Acceptance
    Before recommending the acceptance of an applicant the academic department must satisfy itself that the proposed research programme:

    1. is within the applicant's capabilities
    2. is capable of sustaining research at this level and being completed within the required length of candidature;
    3. can be supported by a suitable supervisor and adequate facilities within an appropriate research environment and that the requirements of the University statement on the Research Environment are met.

    Enrolment of Research Students
    The entitlements and responsibilities of research students must be defined and communicated clearly to them in the formal offer letter, or in any other communication medium used by the faculty or department.

    Student Information and Induction
    Candidates should be provided with opportunities to enable them to commence their studies with an understanding of the academic and social environment within which they will be working.

    Research training
    Candidates must have access to a suitable programme of research training which supports their research, complies with any Research Council requirements and which helps them to prepare themselves for their subsequent career. There should also be access to relevant seminar programmes and learned conferences within and - where resources and opportunities permit - beyond the institution.

    Ethical considerations
    Both supervisors and students should observe due ethical standards in the design, conduct and reporting of the research. Ethical considerations must be addressed in experiments involving either human subjects or animals. Academic departments/colleges should establish a formal channel to consider and determine any such ethical issues.

  5. Candidature

    Initial candidature
    All candidates should be registered for an MPhil in the first instance with the possibility of transfer to PhD (see below). Transfer to PhD candidature can occur only where the student has made satisfactory progress and successfully completed the upgrading process described in paragraph 13.

    Mode of Candidature
    Candidature may be full or part-time. Part-time candidates will normally be expected to demonstrate that full-time study is not possible because of employment or other commitments. They should also satisfy the academic department/college that they can commit sufficient time to the project to sustain satisfactory progress.

    Duration of candidature
    The minimum periods of candidature, from the date of registration, are as follows:
    MPhil: not less than twelve months full-time;
    not less than twenty four months part-time;
    PhD: not less than twenty four months full-time;
    not less than thirty six months part-time;
    In practice the period of candidature will usually be longer. The maximum duration of candidature is four years full-time and six years part-time.

    Extension of candidature
    The minimum and maximum periods of candidature should be strictly adhered to. Extensions of candidature beyond the maximum period of time will be granted only where there is good cause, and on specific application by the candidate, supported by the supervisor, before the candidature is due to expire.

    Suspension of candidature
    A Faculty or College Board may allow suspension of candidature, having considered a request from the student accompanied by a written justification and supported by the supervisor. The maximum period of suspension should be stipulated. Suspended students should not receive supervision nor have access to facilities.

    Research assistants
    A research assistant may also be registered, normally part-time, as a candidate for a research degree. Performance as an employee and progress as a student should be assessed and treated separately.

  6. Supervision

    Research students are allocated a main supervisor or Director of Studies with a supervisory team. Where candidates are allocated only one supervisor, a postgraduate advisor or postgraduate tutor should also be appointed to provide additional support as necessary.

    Where a candidate's project extends beyond the supervisor's expertise an additional supervisor should be appointed to provide the required specialist advice.

    The supervisor
    The supervisor, Director of Studies in a supervisory team, should normally be a full-time member of academic staff, or a member of academically-related or research staff approved for this purpose. Other members of academically related staff or an academic member of staff on probation (or senior member of honorary clinical staff in the Faculty of Medicine, Health and Biological Sciences) may be appointed to supervise in conjunction with a member of full-time academic staff who has appropriate experience of supervision. At least one member of any supervisory team must have prior experience of supervision which has led to successful PhD completion. Supervisors must be active researchers in the appropriate discipline; and should normally themselves have a PhD or equivalent substantial research experience, experience of publication, and expertise in the area of the student's research. Junior staff in formal candidature for a higher degree should not be appointed as supervisors.

    Responsibilities of the supervisor
    The responsibilities of the supervisor, or supervisory team, are as follows;

    1. to give guidance about the nature of research and the standard expected, the planning of the research programme; literature and sources; requisite techniques; avoidance of plagiarism and the respect of copyright and intellectual property rights;
    2. to identify a student's training needs, advising on attendance at seminars, taught courses and instruction in appropriate research methods and techniques as required;
    3. to set the necessary completion dates for successive stages of the work so that the thesis is submitted within the scheduled period;
    4. to require written work as appropriate and to return such work in reasonable time with constructive criticism;
    5. to maintain contact with the student through regular tutorial and seminar meetings, in accordance with local policy and in the light of discussion of arrangements with the candidate;
    6. to be accessible to the candidate at other reasonable times when advice is needed;
    7. to monitor the candidate's work, submit the required progress reports; discuss these with the candidates; and to give advice on progress, upgrading to PhD and submission;
    8. to ensure that the candidate is made aware if progress is inadequate or the standard of work is below that generally expected and to develop a constructive plan for its improvement;
    9. to arrange as appropriate for the candidate to talk about his/her work to staff or graduate seminars or conferences, or to have practice in oral examinations;
    10. to liaise with external bodies as appropriate and to make arrangements with any external supervisors;
    11. to encourage publication of work as appropriate;
    12. to advise the student on the required safety procedures if appropriate;
    13. to ensure that the University's Equal Opportunities Policy is taken into accont in all aspects of the candidate's experience as a research student.

    Absence of the supervisor
    If the supervisor is absent for a substantial period, normally one month or more, the academic department/college should designate a temporary or permanent replacement and make appropriate handover arrangements.

    Supervision tutorials
    The supervisor and candidate should maintain regular tutorial contact. The frequency of tutorials will depend upon the stage and nature of the research project but should, in the case of full-time students, take place at least once per month. Both student and supervisor should have a clear, agreed understanding of the frequency and nature of contact required at any particular stage. In the first year, especially the first term, meetings should be more frequent. Overseas students may need more frequent meetings during the first year.

    Change of supervisor
    The academic department/college should establish a procedure whereby a change in supervisor may be made should circumstances warrant it.

  7. Responsibilities of the student

    The ultimate responsibility for the thesis lies with the student and it is therefore essential that s/he participates fully in planning the research project, considering advice and discussing the work with the supervisor or supervisory team. In particular the responsibilities of the student include:

    1. discussing with the supervisor the type of guidance and commitment found to be most helpful, and agreeing and adhering to a schedule of meetings;
    2. taking the initiative in raising problems or difficulties, however trivial they may seem, and indicating to the advisor or Head of Department at an early stage any perception that supervision is inadequate;
    3. maintaining the progress of the work in accordance with the research plan agreed with the supervisor, including in particular the presentation of written material as required in sufficient time to allow for comment and discussion before proceeding to the next stage;
    4. agreeing with the supervisor the amount of time to be devoted to the research and the timing and duration of any holiday periods;
    5. providing an annual statement on progress to the Department and/or Faculty as part of the annual review of candidature;
    6. deciding when the thesis is to be submitted, after taking due account of the supervisor's advice;
    As well as:
    1. participating in research training and attending conferences likely to further training in research;
    2. participating in staff and student research seminars, presenting occasional seminars;
    3. preparing papers for publication or presentation at appropriate conferences.

  8. The responsibilities of the Academic Department 2

    Although much of the responsibility for ensuring that a student's research reaches a successful completion is shared between the student and the supervisor, the academic department has overall responsibility for the process. The academic department should satisfy itself that the appropriate requirements of the regulations and of this Code of Practice are met.

  9. Teaching and demonstrating duties

    Research students may be asked to undertake teaching or demonstrating duties, after appropriate training. Academic departments should ensure that such activities, including preparation and marking, do not make excessive demands on the student's time and so detract from the research.

  10. Publications

    It may be appropriate for students to produce articles and papers for publication during candidature. This work should not take precedence over the writing of the thesis and supervisors should give advice about an appropriate balance.

  11. Health and Safety

    It is the supervisor's responsibility to advise the student on the correct safety procedures, especially if the research project entails working with dangerous equipment and materials or is being carried out in a laboratory environment. It is the student's responsibility to abide by the institutional Safety Policy, to observe safe working practices at all times and to follow those procedures prescribed by the supervisor.

  12. Equal Opportunities

    It is the supervisior's responsibility to ensure that the University's Equal Opportunities Policy is taken into account in all aspects of the candidate's experience as a research student.

  13. Progress

    Annual progress report
    Each student and supervisor must submit a written report on progress each year, for formal consideration by the appropriate body (as specified by the Faculty or College), which should ensure that adequate progress is being made and identify and address any general issues arising. The report by the student should summarise progress made in that year and should be submitted with an assessment by the supervisor, including the likelihood of the student completing the thesis within the required time limit. Any particular problems encountered by the student eg access to resources or facilities, should be indicated, and appropriate action taken.

    Unsatisfactory progress
    It is the responsibility of the supervisor to inform the student of unsatisfactory progress as soon as this becomes apparent. If discussion between the student and the supervisor fail to resolve the issue the Faculty or College may issue a warning to the student, and recommend termination of course if no improvement is forthcoming.

  14. Upgrade from MPhil to PhD

    All students are registered initially for the degree of MPhil and must apply to upgrade their candidature if they wish to submit for a PhD. This must occur at least six months before submission; in practice it often takes place during the second year of full-time candidature. Upgrade from MPhil to PhD should be recommended only after a formal review of the research topic, of its suitability for development into a PhD thesis and of the candidate's ability and progress. The procedure will vary according to the discipline but should involve the following practice and criteria.

    Criteria for transfer
    In order to be upgraded the following criteria must be met:

    1. that the student has demonstrated the ability to manage the research project, to become proficient in the special field of research involved, and to achieve success at PhD level given adequate motivation and perseverance.
    2. that the project being undertaken is of sufficient scope, originality and theoretical interest to constitute a genuine contribution to the subject in the form of the understanding of a problem, the advancement of knowledge or the generation of new ideas.

    Supporting evidence
    In order to make a judgement on these criteria, those making the recommendation must have reviewed a substantial body of written work equivalent to 2-3 draft thesis chapters. This should include material such as:

    1. overview of the research problem and rationale for the project;
    2. substantial literature review;
    3. well-developed plans for fieldwork and data analysis
    In addition there should also be some form of viva voce examination, based on the written submission for transfer. Any evidence of capability in some public arena eg through a seminar presentation or published work, may also be considered.

    The recommendation
    A recommendation must be made to the appropriate Faculty or College committee which is charged with responsibility for approving transfers of candidature from MPhil to PhD. The recommendation should be supported by the supervisor(s), advisor(s) and at least one other member of academic staff who has had no direct involvement in the research. If the recommendation is not to allow transfer, the candidate must be given a clear written statement of the reasons, guidance regarding any ways in which s/he might reach the required standard, and a date when the recommendation might be reviewed.

  15. Transfer of PhD to MPhil

    Transfer from PhD to MPhil may be permitted at any time prior to the submission of the thesis.

  16. Transfer to nominal registration

    Candidates may be allowed to transfer to nominal registration when the supervisor can confirm that the minimum period of candidature has been completed, supervision has ceased and that the thesis is being written up. Usually the supervisor will have seen the thesis in draft form at this stage and will be able to predict the likely completion date. A candidate may remain in nominal registration for up to one year initially at which point the position should be reviewed by the Faculty or College. A once-only fee is payable on transfer to nominal registration and the candidate will no longer be eligible for supervision or access to facilities. Time spent in nominal registration will count towards the total period of candidature.

  17. Production and submission of the thesis

    The requirements for the production of the thesis for submission laid down in the booklet 'Completion of Research Degree of Candidature' should be followed. Attention is drawn to the following:

    Decision to submit
    The decision to submit the thesis must be the candidate's own. The candidate should take note of the supervisor's advice but this advice should not be taken as an indication that the final thesis will fulfil the requirements of the examiners. The supervisor may inform the Faculty/College office in writing if the candidate submits without his/her agreement; this information will not be made known to the examiners, but may be referred to in any subsequent discussions about the outcome of the examination, particularly where failure leads to an appeal.

    Notification of intention to submit
    Candidates must inform the appropriate Faculty/College Office of the intention to submit no later than two months prior to the date of submission in order to allow adequate time for examination arrangements to be made.

    Maximum length of thesis
    The maximum length of a thesis for PhD or MPhil candidature is 75,000 words (or equivalent in the case of non-text based submissions) including references and bibliography. Supporting factual information may be submitted for reference in addition to the thesis itself which will be available to the examiners and will form part of the record. Candidates who exceed the stipulated length will normally be required by the examiners to resubmit in a form which does not exceed the maximum length. A student may present a statement to the supervisor indicating that the thesis cannot be contained within the stipulated length for reasons relating to the subject material. The supervisor may then recommend, before notice of submission, to the Faculty or College that a longer thesis be permitted.

    Thesis written in a language other than English
    A thesis may be written in a language other than English with the approval of the Research Support Sub-Committee. When considering such a recommendation the Sub-Committee will take into account the nature of the research and discipline; and will require assurances that there will be no problems in examining the thesis and that the subsequent published work will be accessible to subject specialists.

    Declaration of Authorship
    Theses at the time of submission should be accompanied by a signed delaration from the student that the material presented for examination is his/her own work and has not been submitted for any other award (and, where relevant, how it relates to a group project).

    Plagiarism
    Plagiarism is defined in the University's General Regulations as 'the copying or paraphrasing, without acknowledgement, from public or private (ie unpublished) material attributable to, or which is the intellectual property of another, including the work of other students'.

    1. Where plagiarism in a submitted thesis is alleged or suspected, the internal examiner will prepare and submit a report on this to the Head of Department, after consultation with the supervisor and external examiner. To determine whether further action is needed, the Head of Department will institute an enquiry, which may involve further consultation with the examiners and supervisor, and the Academic Registrar's Department, as seems necessary.

    2. If on the basis of this enquiry, the Head of Department concludes that further action is required, (s)he will appoint a formal panel to investigate the allegation fully. This panel will be drawn from members of the department not directly involved with the case.

    3. The panel will give the student notice of the allegations and of the meeting that will be held to investigate the case. The student will be allowed to attend the meeting, accompanied by a member of the University if (s)he chooses. The panel will ask the internal examiner to detail the allegations, and the student will then be given a chance to rebut them. After the hearing, and any other consultations which it wishes to hold, the panel will then meet in private to reach its conclusions.

    4. The student will be informed in writing of the panel's decision. Where in the panel's view the allegations are wholly or partly substantiated, the Head of Department will prescribe a penalty, which may include failure in the thesis and either termination of course or a requirement to resubmit a revised thesis within a specified timescale. The student may also be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

    5. When allegations of plagiarism arise in relation to work submitted for an upgrade from MPhil to PhD, the procedures detailed in i-iv above will apply, except that the role ascribed to the examiners will be performed by members of the upgrade panel.

  18. Examination

    Once a candidate has given notice of intention to submit, appropriate examiners must be appointed and arrangements made for the examination. The examination, including the oral, should be completed normally within three months of submission.

    Examiners
    The candidate will be examined normally by an external and an internal examiner; in exceptional circumstances, one additional internal or external examiner may be appointed. Examiners, both internal and external, should have sufficient experience and appropriate subject expertise to be able to examine effectively. The supervisor may not be appointed an examiner.

    External examiners
    External examiners should normally hold academic posts in another higher education institution. Recommendations for examiners who do not hold such positions should be accompanied by a statement outlining their suitability and ability to examine and there should be sufficient evidence of their research experience and expertise in the subject. External examiners should be independent and the criteria for appointing external examiners for taught courses should be followed. Former employees of the University are not eligible until an interval of at least three years has elapsed. The external should have had no formal academic contact with the candidate during the period of research candidature and, although reciprocity may be more difficult to avoid than for taught courses, examiners should not normally be appointed from academic departments where University members of staff have recently examined for the same subject if at all possible. Staff in the University or the accredited colleges are ineligible to act as external examiners for University of Southampton awards. College/University staff with appropriate expertise may however be appointed as internal examiners for University candidates provided they have not been involved in the supervision of the candidate, and vice-versa.

    Role of the supervisor in the examination process
    It is the supervisor's responsibility to make the arrangements for the examination. The supervisor will attend the oral examination - unless the candidate has requested this not to happen - and will be expected to give advice and elucidation to the examiners at their request. The supervisor will not however be appointed an examiner nor take part in the judgement of the thesis under consideration.

    The oral examination
    The oral examination will be chaired by either the internal or external examiner, by agreement between them taking account of College or Faculty custom and practice. In response to a request from either examiner, however, the College/Faculty must appoint an independent chair who is a member of the College/Faculty Board but not an examiner.

    Recommendations of Examiners
    The external and internal examiners will prepare independent written reports on the thesis prior to the oral examination. After any oral examination a joint report will be prepared, including, where appropriate, an agreed recommendation. In cases where the examiners are unable to reach agreement, a further external examiner should be appointed to assess the thesis and the other examiners' reports. The examiners' recommendations must take one of the following forms:

    1. immediate award of the degree;
    2. award after minor amendments made to the satisfaction of the internal examiner by a specified date;
    3. revision (with detailed advice about requirements) and re-submission by a specified date;
    4. formal submission for a lower degree (with or without amendments);
    5. rejection with no right of re-submission.
    A candidate must satisfy the examiners in both the thesis and the oral examination. A candidate may fail either the thesis or the oral or both and the examiners may recommend re-examination only in that part in which the candidate failed. This may not apply if additional work required substantially modifies the submission; on the other hand, where a thesis has demonstrated adequate practical work but insufficient theoretical knowledge, then oral re-examination only may be required. Candidates required to make minor corrections or resubmit should be given a clear and prompt statement by the examiners of what is required, and by what date.

    Consideration of examiners' recommendations
    The reports of the examiners and their recommendations should be scrutinised and approved within the College/Faculty. The outcome of each examination should be formally reported to the Faculty Board or Academic Committee with delegated authority in this respect, and for College candidates, the resulting recommendations should be submitted to the Colleges Research Degrees Committee (CRDC). Under the exceptional circumstances that the appointed examiners are unable to reach agreement, the examiners shall submit independent reports, and the appropriate College/Faculty Board shall recommend to the Research Support Sub-Committee the appointment of an additional external examiner. The additional examiner shall be provided by the Faculty Office with a copy of the thesis/dissertation and the separate reports of the two original examiners, and shall be permitted to interview the candidate before submitting a final report and recommendation to the Chair of the CRDC/Dean of the Faculty. The Chair/Dean shall consider all three reports before reporting to College/Faculty Board.

  19. Access to the thesis

    The results of research should be freely available. Theses are accessible in the University library, and through the British Library doctoral thesis scheme on a microfiche system. Research which is subject to security classification is not therefore appropriate for a higher degree, and theses may be subject to restriction only in exceptional circumstances when Senate agrees to restricted access for a period not exceeding three years from the date of examination.

  20. Grievance procedures

    During candidature
    If, during the period of study, the student feels that the research project is not proceeding satisfactorily for reasons outside his/her control or that an effective working relationship with the supervisor is not being established or maintained, s/he should first consult the second supervisor, if one has been appointed, or advisor about the situation. If necessary a change of supervisor or recommendations to improve supervisory arrangements may be necessary. If discussions with supervisors or advisors do not improve matters candidates should take up the issue with the Head of the Department or Dean of Faculty.

    Appeals procedures
    Following any recommendation by the Board of Examiners not to award a degree, the student may appeal against this decision, using the agreed procedures for research degree appeals, which may be found in Section IV

Notes

1 Regulations for MPhil/PhD Degrees: University Calendar Sections V and XV

2 Where the faculty/academic department role is taken by another body, eg Graduate School, College Committee, locally produced guidelines should makes this clear.

3 The reference to Music and Art and Design both here and in the following paragraph on the thesis, is added to bring the Code in line with Regulation 22.

4 The outcomes cited here for both PhD and MPhil are taken from the National Qualifications Framework published in its final form by the Quality Assurance Agency in January 2001.

5 See Regulations for admission to degree courses, University Calendar Section IV.